In a perverse twist on the motto, “land of the free,” the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up a case about forcing kids to sit through pro-LGBTQ classes in public schools that most kids cannot escape and which we ALSO have to fund.
“Land of the free.”
The news comes as the Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS) accepted the case of Mahmoud v Taylor -- legal action arising out of Maryland, and a matter that not only draws attention to the problems of public school systems pushing LGBTQ cultural Marxism on kids, but the greater problems of public schooling.
As Maria Lencki reports for FoxNews:
“The Supreme Court will decide if Maryland parents, who object to LGBTQ books in the classroom, have a constitutional right to opt their children out of classes that conflict with their family’s faith.
Parents in Montgomery County, Maryland are claiming their children’s schools are violating their religious freedom by not allowing them to opt out of lessons that use books featuring LGBTQ story lines.”
If people were free to keep the money they shell out in taxes, and parents were free to turn away from the government-run schools, is it likely that this kind of pedagogy would survive?
“According to court papers, the district provided the books to teachers and expected them to be incorporated into the classroom by displaying them on shelves, using them for read-aloud, and recommending them to students. When the policy was first introduced, parents were given the option to opt out their children, according to a previous Fox News article, but the legal filing suggests this option was taken away when so many students were being opted out, that it caused high absenteeism.”
It certainly seems a free market would operate quite differently from this political sinkhole.
“‘As alleged in the amended complaint, on March 22, 2023, the Board publicly reiterated that when a teacher chose to use one of the Storybooks in their classrooms, ‘a notification goes out to parents about the book,' and, if a caregiver chooses to opt their child out, the teacher would ‘find a substitute text for that student that supports’ the same language arts standards and objectives,’ the documents states.”
In other words, the school’s ostensible goal – the goal promoted to the citizens – is to teach kids how to read. But, in the political collective, people with political agendas work hard to insert their plans into virtually anything.
RELATED: SCOTUS Rules States Can't Bar Religious Schools From Tax-Based Tuition Funds | MRCTV
And they depict opponents of this manipulation as “insensitive” and “bigoted.”
"’The following day, without explanation, the Board announced in a complete about-face that a notice and opt-out option would no longer be permitted,’ it continues. ‘Although the revised policy became effective immediately, old requests for accommodations were grandfathered in through the end of the 2022–2023 academic year, making the current 2023–2024 academic year the first year for which no students or their parents are provided notice or the opportunity to opt out from the Storybooks.’"
These are “Storybooks.” For ELEMENTARY SCHOOL kids.
Yet:
“The books in question tackle the topics of same-sex relationships, coming out as transgender and attending LGBTQ events. According to legal documents, teachers were also given materials about how to handle questions students may have about topics discussed in the storybooks.”
For those who keep track of jurisprudential precedent, this problem might ring a familiar bell, going back to the SCOTUS case of “West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette,” the seminal battle in which the Justices decided, 6-3, that compelling public school students to salute the flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.
In the majority opinion, Justice Robert H. Jackson famously wrote:
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."
But, of course, his colorful words left out key facts.
Fact one is that any dispute over freedom of speech within a state or municipality actually should not focus on the First Amendment of the US Constitution, because that only forbids the US Congress from abridging speech or religion. This might seem archaic, but it is true that such disputes are supposed to be adjudicated by analyzing the constitution of that particular state, seeing whether the state constitution also contains a protection of speech, religion, and freedom of association.
Second, even if all the signals the judges receive tell them that a child ought to be free to not recite a pledge or, in this case, ought to be free to opt out of reading a piece of LGBTQ propaganda, the taxpayer still will be made to pay.
In the “Land of the Free.”
Follow MRCTV on X!
United For Life: Even The Woke March For The Unborn | MRCTV On The Street
— MRCTV (@mrctv) January 28, 2025
https://t.co/JoT9YBCKci